Talk:Ancient Macedonians

Love and Family

After reading about the "With this or on it," "Because we are the only ones to give birth to " real-men Spartans, who were beaten by 300 gays from Thebes, it would be nice to know if there were any new love angle explaining why it was the Macedonians who eventually turned out victorious. About the only mention of their family and love life is that the Macedonians were periodically debauched. Is anything knowong of love and family in ancient Macedonia? What was the love that enabled the Macedonians to be so great? Debauchery? Come to think of it, the Romans, who beat the lot of them, were known for having been into a bit of that.--Timtak (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your point dude ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On images

The mythological genealogy tree is completely useless and redundant, as that is already described in the text. The choice of using Hesiod is also POV and arbitrary. Why not use the genealogy of Hellanicus. Also, I would much prefer the Georgiev map be reinstated, perhaps in the language section. I see no valid grounds for its removal. It covers the area which this article describes as the territory of the ancient Macedonians. Athenean (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua's map, sourced to Georgiev

The genealogical tree is not redundant. It is simple pictorial explanation of an authors work and a quick reference, like with any image. According to your argument, then, all images are useless because what they are depicting will inevitably have been discussed in the main text; including the language map here based on Georgiev, because "completely useless and redundant, as that is already described in the text". If you want, I could also add Heliacnus' interpolation.

Whilst I commend Alexikoua for the effort, the map is not quite correct. Therefore its worth in the article is brought into doubt. On the other hand, if we had a better linguistic map, I would certainly support such an inclusion. To elaborate why:

(a) Leaving aside that it is rather spurious to create a map of linguistic "borders", the work is actually OR and not modelled exactly on an actual map, but rather an editors incorrect interpretation of Georgiev's position:

(b)It illustrates that during the 3rd century, proto-Greek was spoken over a wide area of Nth Aegean- from the Ionian Sea to the Chalkidike. Georgiev, however states specifically that Study of toponyms shows clearly that this (proto-Greek) region lay approximately in northwest Greece. The map is showing a little more than NW Greece; and "NW Greece" has a specific, well-known geographic connotation, not to mention that no serious scholar has included most of Macedonia and Chalkidike as part of proto-Greek region, these have been distinctly a Phrygian or Thracian "homeland".

(c) Georgiev states Macedonian and Greek are descended from a common Greek-Macedonian idiom that was still spoken till about 2500 BC. This is neither what our map says, nor illustrates.

With such major problems, I think we'd be obliged to remove it until it is amended or a better alternative arrives (as we have done with other articles). 10:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The map is cited by Georgiev, who gives detailed descriptions about the Proto-Greek area: southern boundary is in the Pineios-Acheloos line, it includes Epirus (up to Aulon: incorporating Acroceraunian and Pindus), and corresponds in general with today's Northwestern and Northern Greece. This sounds to be in accordance with the Indo-European (Kurgan) hypothesis, in which Georgiev and other specialists believe (Hammond etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, sounds like your OR. Can you please clarify what Georgiev states exactly from your source, becuase the article I have from him The Genesis of the Balkan Peoples, he states explicitly the proto-Greek homeland was in Epirus, nothing about modern northeast Greece, and that Macedonian was related to Greek, not derived from it. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the trouble to get Georgiev's book you cited. Like the article I cited, it says (pg 156) The proto-greek region included Epirus, approx up to ...., and west and north Thessaly, ie more or less the territory of contemporary NW Greece.

On Macedonia: he states that "macedonian must have very closely related to greek" during the 4th millenium BC (!) but with time became even more remote from greek.

This is not in keeping with your map

Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not only NW Greece but it incorporates "the whole of northern and north-western Greece, " (based on Georgive's linguistic grounds). So, I feel that the Proto-Greek area should incorporate the region west of Strymon river. By the way the area doesn't include north-eastern Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't even read either book, that is the risk one runs when you scramble for snippets of info via Google Books - you have missed the woods for the trees. In both sources you give, which are both the works of Georgiev, he clearly states that the proto-Greek 'homeland' is in Epirus +/- western/ northern Thessaly, not Macedonia or the Chalkidike. Where you've become confused is that he says that certain archaic Greek hydronyms and an absence of pre-hellenic names are also found over a wider area of what is now northern Greece. However, he is 'explicit when talking specifically to the proto-Greek area.

So I'd be careful with your pushing, for you are clearly approaching [1]

((For your own learning, I'd look to "the question 'Where did the Greeks come from?' is meaningless. We can only begin to speak of Greek after the formation of the Greek language as a recognizable, distinct branch of Indo-European; and I gave reasons for believing that this process took place inside Greece during the first half of the second millennium B.C." (p. 254). Wyatt and other linguists agree with Chadwick that, given the observed rate of change in the Greek language in historical times, it is impossible to push its prehistoric development back further than the mid-second millennium B.C. The slow and seemingly authochthonous development of Mycenaean civilization is the most striking archaeological event of this" [American Journal of Archaeology].))

Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems you can't understand that the whole of northern Greece (per Georgiev) incorporates a major part of Greek Macedonia. I suggest you revert yourself, since you ignored this fact. Also please avoid this hypothetical snippet abbuse issue by my side. Unfortunately I have full access on both works of him (please don't remove full cited parts) and it seems you are into deep or territory by assuming that 3rd millenium BC Macedonia was Proto-Thracian territory per Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being unable to understand the georgaphic term 'northern Greece', which was part of the Proto-Greek area, Georgiev states that the geographic region of Pieria is also part of it. Also this map is based, as stated, on Georgiev's reconstruction not Wyatt's or Cadwick's.Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, it is not my intention to argue with you for the sake of it. I respect your contributions. However, my objections are justified. Georgiev explicitly describes where the proto-Greek area is: and I quote : "The proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Aὕλῴν in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilocia and Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiaitotis, Perrhaibaia, Tripolis and Pieria), ie more or less the territory of northwest Greece. " [Pg 156]

It is not up to you or I to interpret what he might or might not have otherwise meant, especially when he spells it out for us in simple, plain English. On Macedonia, pg 170 he explicitly titles it The Mixed Character of the Macedonian Toponymy. What more is there to argue ? Slovenski Volk 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim, per Georgiev, that this area included northern Greece for a period somewhere in the 3rd mil. BC doesn't exclude that diferrent peoples settled there during the entire Bronze Age. Actually per Indoeuropean theory, the IE tribes descended south. In accordance of this theory these Proto-Greek speaking peoples were located in n. Greece and then moved south. For example, another supporter of the IE theory, Hammond, claims that "it is principally from this area of Albania, western Macedonia, and north Epirus that the Greek-speaking peoples moved in successive waves during the Bronze Age into what we know as Greek lands.". I suppose it's easy to present both Hammond's and Georgiev's claims on the same map.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I will revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.163.104 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As above, Georgiev is clearly referring to Thessaly as Northern Greece. If you want to include the map, reconstruct it to only include Pieria and Perrhaibai, then sure, included it by all means. And you just contradicted yourself again - hammond states western Macedonia. Not all Macedonia, nor Chalkidike Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.233.112 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Georgiev is referring to Thessaly as approximately "the whole of northern Greece" this is doubtfull, especially when he clearly includes areas north of Thessaly such as Pieria. Also please do not pretend that I'm contradicting myself, the map doesn't include all of Macedonia but approximately the western part. However, I will look into it to make some minor changes.Alexikoua (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Its simple, just follow his quote and you'll be right. I;m sure you know your Greek geography better than most people. The proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Aὕλῴν in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilocia and Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiaitotis, Perrhaibaia, Tripolis and Pieria), ie more or less the territory of northwest Greece.

This means, you need to remove Bottiaea, Almopia, Pelagonia, Eordaea, Elimeia, and certainly the Chalkidike/ Mygdonia region. Amend your map to reflect this and I'll support its inclusion Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I put one based on what Georgiev described . See what you think Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your map appeas to be completely wrong per Georgiev,

1. its completely anachronistic since until the end of the 3rd century BC proto-Greek and Proto-Macedonian was part of the same idiom [[2]]
2. Georgiev states clear that the proto-Greek region incorporates northern Greece (unless you believe that the northern borders of Greece lie today somewhere in Thessaly).
3. Epirus which is part of this region mysteirously doesn't include a considerable part of the Pindus mountain range.

Unfortunately it seems that a specific author who is specialist on the subject (Georgiev),is completely misused in order to draw wp:or, unhistorical maps in order to promote a large scale edit war.Alexikoua (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on, there's no need for BS. You have not once provided a direct quote from Georgiev in this whole discussion to support the boundaries depicted by your map, have you ?

I, on the other hand, have, repeatedly. My map impeccably adheres to exactly what Georgiev describes and what the map itself claims to depict.

You have not shown a direct quote to prove that Georgiev describes the "proto-Greek homeland' as the northern modern Greece. Georgiev describes the proto-Greek area in Pieria as the northernmost. So why does your map have it up to Pelagonia and Mygdonia ? ?

In fact, your map actually depicts what Georgiev describes as the Greco-Macedono-Phrygian group during the mid 3rd millenium or early 2nd mill. So it would be reasonable to keep your map if we correctly label it to what it realy represents Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems something is really weird in this discussion. I've provided several quotes from Georgiev, but mysteriously they are ignored. To sum up,

• the features of the Proto-Greek area are met in an area that is approximately the whole of northwestern and northernGreece (and off course Thessaly isn't northern Greece)
• The Proto-Phrygian region is in northern Macedonia in the basin of Crna_(river) [[3]]
• The map I've created doesn't include Pelagonia, but about Migdonia, it seems that other supporters of the indoeuropean theory don't aggre with this (just excluded Mygdonia and Chalkidike)
• Settlements like Argos Orestikon, Gonoi, Servia, Vergina are confirmed as parts of this area (by Georgiev and Hammond), but in your map they are either proto-Phrygian or (anachronistically) Proto-Macedonian.Alexikoua (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The natural border between the proto-Greek and the proto-Thracian languages in North-East, was the river Axios. The map needs small correction in this part. Jingby (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexi, Thessaly is northern Greece. Check your compass. It is clear what Gerogiev means by northern Greece - The region north of this line, which comprises EPirus as far as Aulon, in the north (including Paravaia, Tymphgaea, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, Acarnania), western and northern Thessaly and Pieria ie approx whole northern and north-western Greece. Georgiev is explicit where he envisiages the proto-Greek area to be. Your interpretation is therefore neither called for, nor correct. Your map is useful for what he described in the 3rd Mill - the Greco-Macedonian(-Phyrgian) intermediate group. But the legens shoudl read the proposed 'G-M linguistic area in 3rd millenium, not "proto-greek' (coz Georgiev clearly treates the proto-Macedonian area seperately) Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please SV, I think you have crossed trolling teritory, by assuming that Thessaly is approximatelly the whole of northern Greece. For future reference the borders of Greece are in Gevgeliy, ca. 150 kms north and this is in central Macedonia. If you claim that everything north of Thessaly isn't Greece but belongs to another state, I'm sorry that's not the right project to discuss it. Also the region of Pieria doesn't coicide with the Peripheral unit of Pieria, but with a large proportion of western Macedonia, which includes the Pierian mountains, Vergina etc..Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Modern Geography 101 Lesson, Alexi. I appreciate that. I know where modern political Greece is. May I suggest, tho, that you also read references clearly and do not OR them according to your personal interpretation or visions. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People, what are you still discussing about here? I suppose it's still about File:Proto Greek Area reconstruction.png. The only concrete description I've seen cited to the Georgiev source that purportedly supports this map is the bit quoted on Proto-Greek language: "The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i.e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)". Is that all? If that's what the map purports to show, it seems clear to me that it shows the region stretching too far to the north-east, into Macedonia. Am I missing something? Alexikoua, can you please explain, with clear and explitly quoted references, what in Georgiev's description justifies inclusion of half of Macedonia right up to Lake Prespa, the Voras Mountains and Thessaloniki, when the description apparently mentions Pieria as the north-easternmost bit? – Please be precise in your answer; your habit of evading issues with irrelevancies is annoying. By the way, I have repeatedly heard you use the expression "the Indo-European theory". What exactly do you mean by this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to get a hold of Georgiev's book so that I can get to the bottom of this. Athenean (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve created this map Georgiev is relatively more precise by drawing 3rd mil. BC linguistic areas related to others (like Hammond), however specific regions are still under question, so on the one hand he claims that ie approximate the whole of northern Greece (obviously the northern limits of n Greece are not in Aliakmon) is part of the proto-Greek region but on the other hand the entire context makes the delineation confusing: (part of: Crossland, G.I. (1974). The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence. Noyes Press. pp. 243–253. ISBN 9780815550228.)

The pre-Hellenic place-names … are entirely absent north of a line formed by the rivers Achelous and Peneius. The region of this line, which comprises Epirus as far as Aulon, in the north (including Paravaia, Tymphaea, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia and Acarnania), western and northern Thessaly (Hestiaeotis, Perrhaebia, Tripolis) and Pieria, i.e. approximately the whole of northern and north-western Greece, is characterized by the following features. (list of toponyms and etymologies follows).

Absence of pre-Hellenic place-names. Names of the types which we have been considering north of the line of the Achelous and the Peneius on the maps referred to are: Sabylinthos and Salynthios; these are not true place-names but names of persons, probably of Thracian origin. Phauttos, in north-eastern Thessaly is a false form used in place of Phaistos. All the original names north of the line are of archaic Greek origin: for example:

Epeiros, Khaonia, Kammania, Arktanes, Oresteia-Orestai, Paloeis, Kokytos, Akheron, Keraunia ore, Lynkos-Lynkeai, Olympos, Pindos, Onkhesmos, Euroia, Boukhetos, Drys, Kharadra, Thessalia, Lethaios, Dolikhe

Thus, in the region just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequenstly, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece. Since Greek place-names are very dense in that region and they have a very archaic appearance, once may suppose that the proto-Greeks were settled in it during many centuries and even millennia..

There is a contradiction since on the one hand he names briefly the sub-regions of Epirus, Thessaly and finally Pieria (suppose he doesn't mean the modern administrative regions but the geographic-historic regions), but on the other hand it labels this region as approximatelly the north of N & NW Greece. After a quick check in the list of toponyms he includes names of regions north of Aliakmon: so we have [[[4]] Orestis (modern Kastoria region) and [[5]] Lyncestis (modern Bitola region). Further checking the list of toponyms the Chaonian inland in Epirus is also supposed to be part of Georgiev's proto-Greek too (part of Khaonia). Taking this under account I have 2 proposals:

• redrawing the northern limits of the region as follows: Vlore-Chaonia-Pindus (the northern boundaries lie somewhere north of Grammos)- Orestis (s. of Prespa)- Lyncestis (e. of Prespa) - (excluding Voras mountains) - Pierian mountains - Aliacmon -Thermaic - (exluding Axios).
• replacing the supposed proto-Greek area by placing dots on every topo/hydro/oronym from Georgiev's long list.

I would prefer the dotted map.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You have now quoted two passages from different publications. They sound similar but aren't apparently identical. In the one you have quoted on the Proto-Greek language page, from Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages, it says quite clearly "The Proto-Greek region included ...", and then gives a description that is of a markedly smaller area than the one you show. About the other passage, and the context where he lists some toponyms, you have not provided enough context to judge whether he is in fact describing the same "Proto-Greek region", and whether any mention of a placename in that list automatically entails inclusion in such an area. Since we've only got snippets from that discussion, the only clean solution is to provide a map that scrupulously follows the one passage where he unambiguously describes what we are supposed to be describing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have been maintaining the whole time, Georgive is clear and explicit where he envisiages his pr/Gk homeland. That cerrtain areas north of that might also contain Gk toponyms doesnt extend the Gk homeland. He attributes similarities of Gk toponyms in Macedonia to the actual Gk homeland due to his position that Macedonian and Greek were one langauge in M 3. However, he clearly defines proto/Macedonian as its own "ethnic" sub/region, due to its also containing non/Greek forms. Alexi feels that I am impplying something negative by stating that by northern Greece, Georgiev clearly means Thessaly. There is no confusion / simply follow Georgiev's very words, which he has consitently maintained in The Genesis of Balkan Peoples article, his book on Intro to IE, and his article in Aegean migrations in Bronze Age. In case it was not clear the first 20 times, let 's repeat his exact description "The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria)". Essentially, the map does not represent what it claims it does, nor does it actually follow the alleged source. (SV)

I do not yet have the book, but based on the above description, I would say that including the Prespes region, the area near Mount Voras (Lynkestis) and the mouth of the Axios is a bit of stretch. However, since the description includes Tymphaia, Perrhaebea and Pieria, a straight line drawn from the Avlon to the mouth of the Haliakmon should do it. Keep in mind that ancient Pieria stretches a bit north of the current preferecture of Pieria, and includes the area of Aegae. Athenean (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this version, with the exeption of Orestis and Lyncestis which it seems were part of this area according to G..Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgiev has drawn a map of proto-Greek and proto-Macedonian areas (Map 2 in ´´Intro..´´). The defined regions are as I have copied in my map. If we wan to construct a map ´´ourselves´´ based on his description of a Greco-Macedonian-(Phrygian) dialectical continuum or subgroup in the 3rd Mill, then it would be fine to include areas farther north, as long as the map is labelled on the legend itself the proposed G-M-P subgroup linguistic area and not labelled as the ´proto-Greek area´. (SV)

@SV: Which one of your two maps is the real Georgiev's? Something very weird is that on both maps "Pelagonia" is placed on the wrong place (se of Prespa instead of ne).Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting Alexi, I will make a slight amendation when I get back to Australia from Europe. Regards (SV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.55.112 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Greek states"

I wrote the Macedonians turned against the Greek poleis becuase it refers specifically that it had wars with Athens, etc. They already had an alliance with Epirus and Thessaly, had it not ? The above sentence does not imply that Macedonians were not Greeks, but they certainly were not a city -state. So the nomenclature is strictly 'political', not 'ethnic' Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Macedonians turned also against the Boeotian League, a League isn't exactly the same political structure as the polis (Thebes the center of the League was raised to the ground). So, the term 'Greek states' encompasses all these entities.Alexikoua (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can leave it as Greek states, but I the "other" might be questionable, given that the Macedonian monarchy differed to the Greek poleis and confederacies. A not insignificant number of sources, including the one referred to in the in line reference of the sentence in question, do not necessarily view the Macedonian monarchy as a "Greek state" in the true sense of the word, whether one views the Macedonian people as Greeks or not. (So your edit has changed/ misrepresented what the cited source actually states: The Macedonian Empire "originated on the edge of the Greek world and (was) heavily influenced by Greek civilization even to the point of copying the Greek phalanx but developing it according to their own preferences...As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization they developed a larger and stronger state than any in Greece proper...The Macedonians only became important players in the Greek system after they had used what they had learned from the Greeks to expand into barbarian Europe.")

Not a big issue, but we have to be precise Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The river Haliacmon

Wikipedia has an article on Haliacmon, which seems to be the river referred to here, but it has been spelled 'Heliacmon' in the article. Does anyone object if I correct the spellings and wikilink to our article? The ancient Greek name for the river is Ἁλιάκμων so I don't know why the first vowel should be rendered as 'e' in English. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Imported" vs "Native" customs

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing regarding what was imported and what native. My suggestion is we either leave this out, or correctly state the facts. Some editors have argued that the "Greek" elements, however defined, were native, whilst others were imported.

Apart from being a rather meaningless division, this is (if anything) inaccurate and opposite to actual fact.

Snodgrass Altogether the graves of Macedonia, like their contents, are best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, in which the phenomena of Greek influence - the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare cremations at Vergina - are fleeting.

Krisstianson As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization

Whitby But, if Macedonians were beginning to make use of some central Greek objects, they were otherwise sticking to their peculiar Macedonian ways

Lemnos It has already been noted that the community at Vergina had stronger links with northern regions, but contacts with southern areas in Greece are also indicated by the few imported vases...

Borza From the archaeological record it is clear that Macedonians were a non-Greek people who became increasingly Hellenized.

I thus propose either leaving simply "fusing GReek and Thraco-Illyrian", or "indegenous Macedonian elements became increasingly Hellenized".

Slovenski Volk (talk)

I haven't decided on this, but "Thraco-Illyrian" needs to go. It is a dated term that is no longer used in the literature. For example, it doesn't appear once in the Companion. Athenean (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to concur that the term is somewhat archaic and too broad. A further few suggestions from the literature:

Theodossiev (Dead with Golden Masks, Ox J Arch) close examination of the archaeological finds in the lands between the Aegean and Adriatic coasts, shows well that identical grave construction, burial ritual and similar kterismata were widespread among different Illyrian, Epeiran, Paionian, Thracian and Macedonian tribes during the Late Antique..Testifyinf strong interrelations and interractions amongst different ethne in north Balkan lands

Archibald The immediate and continuing background to the rise of Macedonia kingdom is marked by the cultural continuity and stabilty since LBA, ones whose primary orientation appears to have been with Thrace. Greek and non-Greek might may not be helpful terms in trying to clarify the material culture of these northern zones, irrespective of linguistic evidence Yet, well into historic period, the nature of Macedonian pit graves and their repertoire of jewellery and weapons is decidedly "un-Greek" in nature which appear at the very heart of the kingdom - Vergina, Sindos, etc.

Butler My evidence suggests that as the Balkan tribes of northern Greece were integrated into the Aegean world during the fifth century BCE. Selected Greek burial practices were integrated into Balkan death-ritual as the loosely-organized Balkan tribes looked to exogenous sources for cultural models.

So then I propose something like, The rise of the Macedonian kingdom was marked by the integration of the region's strong Late Bronze Age 'central Balkan' cultural traditions into a Graeco-Aegean beurocratic and economic system" Slovenski Volk (User talk:Slovenski Volk

No need to make this more and more complicated. Frankly, I think the original "Greek and non-Greek" wording is the least objectionable, barring that it might be best to avoid using ethnic labels altogether, i.e. just "native with imported". Athenean (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

agree with simplicity; How about Generally described as an ancient Greek people, they emerged from a north Aegean and central Balkan cultural zone incorporating heterogeneous but predominantly indigenous linguistic and cultural elements. ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the reservations and complexities voiced by specialist literature about their exact position as "Greeks", perhaps it might be best if we state that the Macedonians were part of the Greek world, whilst also having their particular regional culture. This follows the literature best and avoids misunderstandings. See new lede Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Balkan" is first of all highly anachronistic. "Generally described as an ancient Greek people" was just fine. Athenean (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Balkan" and "Aegean" terms are is moreover technical jargon used by the archeological literature. This is an encyclopedia article that needs to be accessible to the general public. It is already riddled with technical jargon and hard enough to understand, let's keep the lede non-technical at least. Athenean (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkan refers to the region, not necessarily any distinct cultural characteristics. I don't think using terms such as Balkan or Aegean requires a PhD in Archaeology to understand. I would argue that the average reader, especially given those reading this article, would understand what they refer to. So i fail to see your logic as to the term Balkan being anachronistic

If we are to leave the "generally referred to as an ancient Greek people" sentence, then this invokes possibly incorrect information. As I have previously stated, a lot of those sources which are 'claimed' to support this position do not in actual fact, or do so under a greatly modified premise (eg Fine's Ancient Greece states that they spoke ancient Greek but were not considered Greek), and a large body of the specialist literature does not either. Wikipedia has a policy of source heirarchy: ie better quality, more detailed and more recent studies trump those written in 1976 about the "Life of Phillip II". That is why my amendment which you reverted was a more sensible solution Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I prefer the previous version. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and let's not forget, a large body of the specialist literature does consider them Greek (e.g. Roisman and others in the Companion). Athenean (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after the 4th century (Anson and Engels), or Roman times (Baidan, Danforth, Borza). This is a not insignificant qualification Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, before the 4th century (Roisman, Christensen, Murray, Hammond). And besides, it is only significant to those obsessed with "proving" that the Macedonians "were not Greeks". This was your own wording, by the way. Forget it. Athenean (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for sensationalism and making unjustifable suggestions of personal motives here. I have highlighted why there is need for a slight amendment to the lede given my concern with sourcing and need for NPOV according to current scholarly opinion. You seem intent on flat rejection of my suggestions, so I suppose we need opinions from WP:RSN Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove from the lede my additions about their expansion? Uncool. The Illyrian and Thracian admixture is now mentioned. I trust this resolves the issue. Athenean (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

it is , sorry, that was accidental Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

yauna takabara

This paragraph is just one POV:

The Persians referred to both Greeks and Macedonians as Yauna ("Ionians", their term for "Greeks"), though they distinguished the "Yauna by the sea and across the sea" from the Yaunã Takabara or "Greeks with hats that look like shields", possibly referring to the Macedonian kausia hat.

But see Robert Rollinger's chapter in Blackwell's Companion to the Classical Greek World (ed. Konrad H. Kinzl), p. 204 and 205:

According to external criteria two groups of 'Greeks' are distinguished, both of which find expression in a representation differently depicted each time on royal tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. The distinction between Yaunā and Yaunā takabarā becomes clear in the first place because of the headress. This seems to be confirmed by terminology, although the difficult-to-interpret Old-Persian takabara and the corresponding Babylonian terminology - the other 'Greeks' (Yamanāja šanūtu) who wear maginnāta (plural) on their heads - still pose problems. Klinkott on one hand suggests that the term refers to a headress, specifically, the petasos, a felt hat with wide brim. Schmitt on the other hand raises the possibility that it refers to a shield, the pelte, because the wide brim does not seem to be a characteristic iconographic element. [...]

[I]t might be instructive to distinguish two models of interpretation, which have been presented recently. In one case the meaning of Yaunā is understood as a homogenous ethnic term and is the equivalent of the Greek world. Therefore Yaunā, with its various attributes, would refer to the regions that lie in the west and northwest of Asia Minor. The second interpretation construes the original meaning of Yaunā in a broader sense and interprets it as multiethnic. It refers to far-distant peoples in the west, who are to be found both in Asia Minor and in the northern Aegean. In addition to the Greeks this included the Phrygians, Mysians, Aeolians, Thracians, and Paionians. [...] However much one wishes to judge this incongruity, it is possible nevertheless to regard a few observations as certain. Yaunā refers to an ethnos or a conglomeration of peoples, who lived at the western fringes of the empire and possibly beyond. It is therefore likely that the various terms may go back to different situations of conquest. The terminology may betray a constructed artificiality striving for order.

Rollinger authored also "Yaunā takabarā und maginnāta tragende 'Ionier'. Zum Problem der 'griechischen' Thronträgerfiguren in Naqsch-i Rustam und Persepolis", challenging the widely held view that Yaunā takabarā were Greeks wearing a petasos, i.e. Macedonians and Thessalians. He also suggested it is possible that takabarā is a representation of "die Kampftechnik der griechischen Phalanx" Daizus (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is consistent with the term Ioanians being adapted to refer to all western (from the Persian viewpoint) inhabitants deemed to live in the Greek oikumene, not unlike the term "Latins" or "Franks" was used by the Byzantine Greeks to refer to a variety of Catholic, western European monarchies in medieval/ early modern times. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Identity

I am sorry to say, but this section has a POV and editorialized feel to it. It seems that most paragraphs here have been picked-and-placed in order to paint a central theme -- namely that the editor seems to be doing the best he can to call into question the greekness of the macedonians -- I don't have a problem with views of borza and others, but they should not be presented in such an editorialized fashion. Frankly it seems like a long-winded, one-sided essay, with a lot of contentious statements in it.... can anyone really argue that the tone of this section is not even slightly skewed?

Over the next few weeks I'll be making changes to this section that I feel will give it more of a neutral point of view. Everything of course, can be discussed here on the discussion page, and I hope to have some constructive engagement from the other editors of this page.

I will be making edits in good faith under WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. I would appreciate other editors also using good faith, and not simply reverting changes without discussion. Lets work together to make this a fair and useful NPOV article for all readers.

Three things in my current edit are:

1. The beginning of this section opens quite poorly. As it is a very long section, the first few sentences should act as a summary and introduction to the section. It would be prudent to restate the following summary from the lead regarding the identity of the macedonians, that the macedonians were 'Generally described as an ancient Greek people,' (using the 17 existing references). Restating statements from the lead in their appropriate sections is good practice, and is commonly followed on wikipedia.

2. Changing "The earliest version of the Temenid foundation myth was circulated by Alexander I, via Herodotus, during his apparent appearance at the Olympic Games." To: "Herodotus, one of the foremost biographers in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, writes that Alexander I stated his descent from the Argives during his appearance at the Olympic Games."

It is generally accepted that Alexander I appeared at the Olympic Games. This article is not the right place to argue about whether or not he appeared there, as is insinuated by the 'apparently'. (This is just one example of the current state of the state of the article, which puts a conspiratorial question over every historical source that does not agree with the most recent editor..)

Changing "Despite protests from some competitors, the Hellanodikai ("Judges of the Greeks") accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy, as did Herodotus himself, and later Thucydides." To:

"The judges of the Olympic Games (Hellanodikai) accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy although there were some protests from competitors. The competitors either did not believe Alexander I, or simply called into question his Greekness in an attempt to lessen the field of competition."

Removing the following passage, for reason given below: "The judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services to Hellas. The historicity of Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics has been doubted by some scholars (Alexander’s name does not appear in any list of Olympic victors), who see the story as a piece of propaganda engineered by the Argeads and spread by Herodotus.[134] Moreover, that there were protests from other competitors suggests that the supposed Argive genealogy of the Argeads "was far from mainstream knowledge";[135] and the appellation "Philhelene" was "surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek".[135][136] Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]"

This entire passage is (as the editor states), the view of "some scholars", (i.e, not the view of MOST scholars). It is certainly not the mainstream view. The editorializing tone of this passage is summed up purely by the last sentence quoting hall: "Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]

Removing "The emphasis on the Heraklean ancestry of the Argeads served to heroicize the royal family and to provide a sacred genealogy which established a "divine right to rule" over their subjects.[138] The Macedonian royal family, like those of Epirus, emphasized "blood and kinship in order to construct for themselves a heroic genealogy that sometimes also functioned as a Hellenic genealogy."[139]"

The above does not flow well with the previous paragraph removed, and does not talk directly to the macedonian identity in general...

REMOVING: Although most contemporary Greek writers accepted the Argeads as Greek, they nevertheless expressed an air of ambiguity about them (specifically their monarchic institutions and their background of Persian alliance) often portraying them as a potential "barbarian" threat to Greece. For example, the late 5th century sophist, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, objected "we Greeks are enslaved to the barbarian Archelaus" (Fragment 2).

OFF TOPIC. This does not belong here. The identity of the Argeads, and how other Greeks felt about them can be discussed in a section on the Argead page.

REMOVED: "What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians."

OFF TOPIC & editorializing. This does not belong here. It does not talk to the identity of the Macedonians. The spread of Hellenism via Greco-Persian campaigns under alexander is not an appropriate discussion here.

3. In his book 'Phillip II of Macedonia' Ian Worthington makes a statement that talks directly to the identity of the Macedonians,: 'not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable.' ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008). This is an important statement, and his overall must be expressed considering that Worthington is also referenced about 20-30 times in this article by the current author.

=====

There is already too much noise and POV tone to this section. It needs some serious work. I tend to find the way that it is currently written is as follows: (being slightly facetious of course)

"Most contemporary greeks considered the Argives greek" (1 sentence) "Though some contemporary greeks felt otherwise..." (followed by 30 sentences outlining why some felt otherwise).

"Most modern scholars consider the macedonians to be a greek people" (1 sentence) "Though some scholars feel otherwise....." (followed by 90% of the remainder of the article discussing why some feel otherwise).

Unfortunately most of this article is focused on the view of the 'some', and the reader has barely any information on the view of the 'many'.... For example, why is it that most contemporary greeks considered the Argives to be greek?? This is not discussed at all in the article, only the contrary point. That is the common theme is see here.

My goal over the next few weeks will be to add content and sources (Both contemporary and modern views) that will even out the article, and present the reader with a more balanced viewpoint.

I hope to engage in a positive collaboration with other editors!

Cheers!

99.231.167.199 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically you want to say Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and claims to the contrary (or merely casting a shadow of doubt) must be removed, rewritten or moved to some other page? Daizus (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Read what I wrote above. All views should be provided and weighted fairly. The article should not have an editorialized tone, and should be presented in a NPOV manner. 99.231.167.199 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)